When Silence Speaks: How India's Restraint Became Its Strongest Weapon
New Delhi: In a world that often confuses noise with strength, restraint is underrated. But according to renowned war historian Tom Cooper, it was precisely India's strategic restraint, if not bravado, that tilted the scales during the post-Pahalgam military face-off with Pakistan.
The April 22 terror attack in Kashmir's Baisaran meadow that killed 26 civilians triggered an immediate Indian military response in the form of 'Operation Sindoor' – a swift, precise and punishing strike on nine terror-linked sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. However, what followed was more telling than the operation itself.
'India could have gone further. It could have crippled Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure. It had the means. But it did not,' said Cooper in a recent interview.
Restraint, Not Retaliation
According to Cooper, India's military had access to strike Pakistan's nuclear storage facilities – a move that could have drastically changed the region's strategic landscape.
'Indian generals are cautious. They understand the gravity of crossing that line. And that is what makes this different. The real story is not what India hit. It is what it chose not to,' he said.
This, he argues, was the quiet victory – decisive yet controlled.
Pakistan's Response: All Bark, No Bite?
While Pakistani leadership threatened retaliation, their actual military response, according to Cooper, was ineffective. 'They launched UAVs and missiles in large numbers. But what did they accomplish? Nothing significant,' he said. Indian air defenses, in his words, remained 'vivid, active and lethal'.
Meanwhile, India continued its operations with surgical precision, neutralising key elements of Pakistan's air defense network. Cooper points out that even Pakistan's follow-up airstrike yielded no serious consequences. 'India was not only prepared, it was unshaken,' he added.
A Victory Beyond Borders
Cooper's analysis reframes the narrative. Unlike past skirmishes, this was not about chest-thumping or international mediation. It was about control – of arsenal, emotion and narrative.
'Pakistan tried to escalate and failed. India could have escalated but did not. That is not just military superiority, it is psychological dominance,' Cooper said.
When Restraint Becomes Power
This is not the story of a battlefield soaked in conquest. It is the story of a country that knew where to hit and where to stop.
In a region where history often rhymes with violence, 'Operation Sindoor' may be remembered not only for its military impact but for the message it carried – that modern warfare is not only about firepower. Sometimes, the loudest message is delivered in silence.
And that silence, according to Cooper, may have just saved South Asia from the brink.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
11 minutes ago
- India Today
Eliminate the vile: US lawmaker tells Pakistan to act against Jaish-e-Mohammed
In a strong message to Pakistan, US Congressman Brad Sherman has urged Islamabad to act decisively against the terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), calling it a 'vile' group responsible for heinous acts, including the 2002 murder of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel a Pakistani delegation led by former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari in Washington on Thursday, Sherman said Pakistan should do 'all it can to eliminate this vile group and combat terrorism in the region.'advertisementThe meeting comes as MPs, led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, are also visiting Washington to brief American interlocutors on 'Operation Sindoor' following the recent Pahalgam terror attack. India has blamed the attack on Pakistan-backed terrorists and has reiterated its zero-tolerance stance toward cross-border terrorism. In a post on social media platform X, Sherman said, 'I emphasised to the Pakistani delegation the importance of combatting terrorism, and in particular, the group Jaish-e-Mohammed, who murdered my constituent Daniel Pearl in 2002.' He added that Pearl's family still resides in his California district.I emphasized to the Pakistani delegation the importance of combatting terrorism, and in particular, the group Jaish-e-Mohammed, who murdered my constituent Daniel Pearl in 2002. Pearl's family continues to live in my district, and Pakistan should do all it can to eliminate this— Congressman Brad Sherman (@BradSherman) June 5, 2025advertisementTerrorist Omar Saeed Sheikh was convicted of orchestrating the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel JeM, a UN-designated terrorist group, has long been accused of orchestrating deadly attacks in India, including the 2019 Pulwama suicide bombing that killed 40 Indian security didn't stop at terrorism. The Congressman also raised concern over the state of religious minorities in Pakistan, stressing that 'Christians, Hindus and Ahmadiyya Muslims must be allowed to practice their faith and participate in the democratic system without fear of violence, persecution, discrimination, or an unequal justice system.'The US lawmaker also called for the release of Dr Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani physician who helped the CIA locate Osama bin Laden by running a fake polio vaccination campaign. Afridi was arrested in 2011 and sentenced to 33 years in prison.'Freeing Dr. Afridi represents an important step in bringing closure for victims of 9/11,' Sherman told the delegation.
New Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Road to justice for the Bengaluru XI
To blame any of the victims would be perverse beyond belief, dealing the unkindest of cuts to the families of those who lost their lives. Yet, it is with deepest sadness that it must be recorded that what happened was not the city's 'defect' or a sporting negligence—it was an Indian tragedy. Repeatedly, when crowds gather, for one cause or another, tragedy unfolds; yet, as a collective, we learn nothing. There is no doubt that the events of Wednesday afternoon have shaken Indian society's consciousness, but not so much that it will act as a deterrent. Not so much that there will be any changes of consequence when it comes to developing infrastructure that can safely handle large crowds, spontaneous surges of people or exuberant gatherings. Not thoroughly enough to force people in power to pause and get to the bottom of why something that should never have happened occurred. A probe has been ordered, arrests may be made, officials suspended and monetary compensation promised. This is a templated response. You can transpose the name of the team or sport, the venue, or the occasion with a religious gathering, a clamour to board a train—and the story would remain depressingly the same. They dare not say it aloud, but there will be a few who will look at the episode and think that only 11 people died. In India, it's not a number of fatalities that triggers righteous outrage. In 2005, at least 258 died in Satara, Maharashtra during a pilgrimage. In 2013, more than 115 were killed in a bridge collapse in over the Godavari in Andhra Pradesh. In 2024, the official count in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh was 121; the trigger was a tent collapse. In sports, globally, the numbers are equally terrifying: 300 in Peru at a football game in 1964, 93 in Nepal in 1988, and 126 in Ghana in 2001. In terms of numbers, the Hillsborough tragedy of 1989 where 97 people lost their lives at the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in Sheffield is probably the most high-profile, not least because the victims' families banded together to mount a protracted campaign for justice. It took 27 years for the UK courts to charge those responsible In India, with the judicial system so overburdened that even the simplest of disputes can take decades to resolve, who knows when, if ever, those responsible for the events of Bengaluru 2025 will be brought to book.
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Vijay Mallya relates how he told Arun Jaitley he was flying to the UK before he left India
TOI correspondent from London: Fugitive liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya has told a podcast, in a rare interview, that he told the late former finance minister Arun Jaitley that he was about to fly out of India to London before he left for the airport in March 2016. At the time there was supposed to be a CBI lookout circular (LOC) issued against him. Mallya told 'Figuring Out with Raj Shamani' he was not aware of any LOC against him, nor that it had been downgraded by the CBI from detaining him to informing immigration of authorities of his travel plans. He told Shamani that certain TV anchors and the Indian govt want to see him in 'jail clothes, eating jail food' in Tihar and spending the rest of his life behind bars. 'If that is what is inevitable, what options do I have? It might be inevitable, I'm not an astrologer. I will fight my way in court.' He said: 'I told FM Arun Jaitley before leaving for the airport and then I flew from Delhi to London on the way to Geneva for a meeting which was fixed months ago. I told the then finance minister because I went from Parliament to Delhi airport. When this news hit the media, once again, it created a storm. People went running to Mr Jaitley. He denied meeting me. A Congress MP saw us and then said to the media 'No, I saw them together'. Mr Jaitley had to retract his statement and say 'Yes, yes I met him but only while walking — it was a fleeting meeting'.' 'I never said I went to Mr Jaitley's office, sat in front of him, had tea with him. All I said is I told the finance minister while leaving, I'm going to London and going to Geneva for a meeting, please tell the banks to sit across the table and settle with me. How long does this once sentencetake? You see the way he denied it, and then when a Congress MP pointed out his mistake that he saw us, he quickly changed.' He also said he had always planned to go back to India but his Indian passport was revoked. In the four-hour podcast Mallya also said he would be prepared to return to India. 'If I have the assurance of a fair trial and assurance of dignified existence in India, I will think about returning to India seriously. ' He then reminded Shamani of the judgment in the Sanjay Bhandari case which found 'Indian detention conditions a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights)', which may mean he could not be extradited now. When asked why he had not gone already as he had lost his extradition battle in the courts, the 69-year-old said: 'My stay in England is fully legitimate. There is more than the particular case you are referring to. There are ongoing proceedings in this country. It's one of the legal battles I am fighting,' he said. This suggests he may have applied for asylum.
